DOES GRAVITY REALLY INFLUENCE THE 'FLOW' OF TIME? (ACCORDING TO THE OBSERVED)

[Nakosis]

Malformed question.

The twin that went to the stars ages less because the proper time (analogous to length) along his path is smaller. The other twin will age more because the proper time along his path is larger.

When the traveling twin returns, do they stop moving with respect to the at-home twin? if so, their 'now' will be the same. If not, some events one thinks of as being 'now' won't be simultaneous to the other.

it isn't a matter of time zone. It is a matter that simultaneity is relative: some people can see events as simultaneous while others see those same two events as being at different times. The notion of 'now' depends on motion (and gravitational field).

Still working on this. Here is a site I found that explains it.

Special Relativity Basics

What strikes me though is that it appears to assume that "now" is the same for both observers. The light wave hits the moving individual observed by both at the same time. It has to, to have any meaning.

There is no absolute fact as to whether two spatially separated events are simultaneous. There is only a fact of simultaneity or its failure relative to an inertial frame of reference.

Ok, fine. This makes sense. However, I don't see this as meaning the "now" moment of time which exists for both observers is any different.

 

[Nakosis]

Malformed question.

The twin that went to the stars ages less because the proper time (analogous to length) along his path is smaller. The other twin will age more because the proper time along his path is larger.

When the traveling twin returns, do they stop moving with respect to the at-home twin? if so, their 'now' will be the same. If not, some events one thinks of as being 'now' won't be simultaneous to the other.

it isn't a matter of time zone. It is a matter that simultaneity is relative: some people can see events as simultaneous while others see those same two events as being at different times. The notion of 'now' depends on motion (and gravitational field).

Still working on this. Here is a site I found that explains it.

Special Relativity Basics

What strikes me though is that it appears to assume that "now" is the same for both observers. The light wave hits the moving individual observed by both at the same time. It has to, to have any meaning.

There is no absolute fact as to whether two spatially separated events are simultaneous. There is only a fact of simultaneity or its failure relative to an inertial frame of reference.

Ok, fine. This makes sense. However, I don't see this as meaning the "now" moment of time which exists for both observers is any different.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Probably pretty much the same reason when you're in a plane traveling at several hundred miles an hour, it doesn't "feel" like you're going that fast, even though it would be obvious to an outside observer (your questions are equivalent to you standing on the ground going "OMG, why are they not all dizzy??"). You're part of that environment, so what is happening is your "normal."

Yes, I understand how and why's of time dilation. By that I mean The observed and the observer would say by their personal time was running normally, but when they compared their time pieces, they would not indicate the same time had passed. The observers clock would be faster than the observed with differences of nano second or eons depending on the variables. What I find intensely interesting is the effect of time seeming to pass normally to the observer and the observed even if the differences were millions of years! This isn't a paradox, its an empirically proven inferences via the effects of gravity or acceleration curing space time. Even knowing that intellectually those effects seem almost magical to my way of thinking.

Thinking about these effects like time dilation, quantum entanglement etc etc gives me a hunch that metaphysical process may soon be discovered to employ/use what I call super-normal processes. Anyway, time does not have much effect upon zero mass 'objects', and time does not effect on our mind,or thoughts,or even the perception that time passes normally the observer and the observed when reality is far different! So sorry for going out on that tangent, but it was kind of related ......

I leave you with our friends Queen:

I was never a mega fan of Queen, but their talent cant be denied! One of the worst but loved by critics earlier bands especially in concert was 'Rush'. I couldn't stand what everyone else though was so cool, that screeching voice! The rock music of that era (for queen it was a long run!) was so great, but I like all types and most eras of music! Trivia question; Who said "I'd rather be dead than singing 'Satisfaction' when I'm forty-five? No Google peeking!

 

[Katja]

Given that he has a PhD in astrophysics, he was well aware of what he was writing about here.

Yes, I know-- that's what makes it so cute.

 

[Katja]

One thing that is missing is pressure. Pressure will cause phase changes such that observer heading to the core will become squished to unconsciousness.

If you fell into the gravity of Jupiter, you would implode. A black hole is thousands or millions of times worse.

Pressure means that gravity is more than GR. Pressure will impact the phases of the matter that are present. The solid iron core of the earth exists due to pressure, since iron would be a gas at the temperate of the earth's core; 6000C, if it was at surface pressure.

Gravitational pressure also causes a secondary time affect. If we look at the center of the sun, time moves the slowest in terms of references, yet this is also the place with the fastest frequencies of matter and energy; fusion and gamma. Reference time may be slowing down, but matter and energy frequency; is speeding up. There is a divergence of time between reference and materials.

If you fell into a black hole, you would change phase into something like a small lump of metallic water quite early in the process. The water molecules would be vibrating at a very high frequency even though time has slowed in terms of reference perception. These two aspects of time go in the opposite direction.

If you look at force, it is mass times acceleration, while acceleration d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time is one part time and one part distance. Gravity via acceleration offers a secondary time aspect connected to pressure and the induction of phases.

I've read it described as that our black hole traveler would be streeeeetched out like spaghetti. And, let's say he's going in headfirst (just as one properly goes down a waterslide if the lifeguards allow it), both ends traveling at different speeds would mean he's not even consistent spaghetti!

 

[wellwisher]

I've read it described as that our black hole traveler would be streeeeetched out like spaghetti. And, let's say he's going in headfirst (just as one properly goes down a waterslide if the lifeguards allow it), both ends traveling at different speeds would mean he's not even consistent spaghetti!

The space traveler would weigh their mass times the gravitational acceleration of the black hole; MG. They would be so heavy that they would change phase into something that can fit on the head of a pin.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Yes, I know-- that's what makes it so cute.

Who may I ask is claiming a PhD in astrophysics?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

The space traveler would weigh their mass times the gravitational acceleration of the black hole; MG. They would be so heavy that they would change phase into something that can fit on the head of a pin.

In an thought experiment (or Gedankenexperiment) 'The space traveler' could pass through the event horizon without any ill effects.


from the web;

A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question.

 

[Polymath257]

Who may I ask is claiming a PhD in astrophysics?

Brian May--from the rock group Queen. His dissertation was on dust in our solar system and is relevant for understanding the dynamics of other star systems.

I don't have a PhD in astrophysics, but have done the PhD qualifying exams in physics and have studied quite a bit of astrophysics. No dissertation, though.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Brian May--from the rock group Queen. His dissertation was on dust in our solar system and is relevant for understanding the dynamics of other star systems.

I don't have a PhD in astrophysics, but have done the PhD qualifying exams in physics and have studied quite a bit of astrophysics. No dissertation, though.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

First of all let's be clear that Einstein did not accept black holes as being a reality, but merely artifacts in the math due to incompleteness. In fact he insisted relativity showed they could not exist as a physical reality......

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d...70.1812902009.1552074460-710557724.1552074460

"The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity. "

He simply chose not to get involved in continued debates over the issue as felt he had already answered the question....

Also lets understand that in all equations for a singularity, the energy momentum tensor is set to zero. this declares that no other mass exists in the universe but that of the black hole. hence the term "singularity". Let's be clear that no one has figured out the equations for more than one mass. there exists not even an existence theorum. To then claim the math allows for more than one.... This is why the Big bang was considered mathematically possible, because only ONE could exist at any given time......

Time does indeed change due to energy, whether the energy is from a gravitational field or from a singularity. This would require that for time to stop, infinite energy must be added....


The rest of the errors have to do with the inability to understand why light remains c regardless of velocity....

 

[Manikios]

I highly recommend checking out the TEDx talk of Rupert Sheldrake where he says there is no constant in the speed of light.

 

[ChristineM]

Given that he has a PhD in astrophysics, he was well aware of what he was writing about here.

He is quite a good tv presenter on the subject too, he has the knack of explaining heavy stuff in a way that is easy for mr (or mrs) average can understand.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I highly recommend checking out the TEDx talk of Rupert Sheldrake where he says there is no constant in the speed of light.

There isn’t, it’s relative to each frame due to its velocity through space.

If it was constant then different duration ticks of time and different length rulers would never give the same result....

Most just don’t understand that our zero points for our measuring devices change proportionally to energy as well and so compensate exactly for our change in velocity.

Also Einstein never said light was constant. Just that each observer would measure c regardless of their velocity.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You'd never guess it was Queen if you didn't know... Brian can put away the rock and metal and write (geeky!!) folk.

I cry at Who Wants To Live Forever?

 

[Thief]

TO THE MEMBERS; FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T LIKE LONG THREADS; THE RED FONT DESCRIBES THE MAIN POINTS OF THE THREAD.

To a few members that will go unnamed; Please do not nit pick insignificant details unless they would be fatal to the threads questions and inferences. I intentionally left out volumes of precise data, and I was intentionally vague on some points for brevity and understandably.

I would be happy to supply sources if anyone has difficulty using a search engine etc to verify any technical facts.



For this thread must use what Einstein called a thought experiment to visualize this question. Why does time pass normally for anyone that falls past the event horizon of a back hole according to his personal time piece? Einstein's theories say the extreme gravity of a black hole should slow then stop time when the observed passes the event horizon. For example two astronauts are orbiting a black hole when one begins to fall towards it. The observer watching his friend fall towards the BH would witness him falling ever slower until he stopped at the event horizon and remained frozen there 'forever'. All the while his friend would pass the event horizon and would say time is normal according to his clock. So maybe we should say time slows or stops for an observer but not the observed. Still it seems like personal time of each does not change. Each would their time was passing normally. I suppose that is why the theories use relative in the title, because time is relative to the observer not the observed!

Question; does the theory; ie General Relativity that predicts time slows** then stops in an infinite gravity field an indication that the theory is wrong because of its infinities etc? Or is it generally correct only incomplete soon to be merged into a quantum theory of gravity via the marriage of the two branches of physics into a TOE? I have a hunch and a hunch only that the theory is at least as wrong as Newtons theory was wrong. Of course Newtons theory was superseded by Einsteins SR and GR.

are you assuming time .....as a force?

 

[Thief]

Also Einstein never said light was constant. Just that each observer would measure c regardless of their velocity.

I might not agree.....the speed of light may be firm....
if you are that beam of light

but another beam of light with head on collision pending
would double that velocity at impact

all motion is relative

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Probably pretty much the same reason when you're in a plane traveling at several hundred miles an hour, it doesn't "feel" like you're going that fast, even though it would be obvious to an outside observer (your questions are equivalent to you standing on the ground going "OMG, why are they not all dizzy??"). You're part of that environment, so what is happening is your "normal."


I leave you with our friends Queen:

Because every frame sees itself as stationary.

Zero points have reset for our measuring devices and us due to the energy content of each frame from its velocity through space.

Look at the speedometer on your car. Imagine that 100 mph is the speed of light. Accelerate to 50 mph. As you accelerate energy is added on the quantum level from your change in velocity. This causes your division marks (clocks and rulers) to change proportionally. Now comes the most important part. You must rotate the dial so that the zero point follows the needle.

Notice the consequences. 100 mph is still 100 mph and can not be reached. Also your velocity through space now reads as zero, not 50 mph.

Our zero points resetting proportionally to our change in velocity is why everything still appears as normal and why every frame measures c.

Other frames appear to change instead because you no longer share the same zero points as they do. Such is why the charge on an electron appears to remain the same, even if that frame has a higher energy content. Your zero points do not start at the same place on the energy scale. The change of your zero points compensate exactly for your change in velocity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I might not agree.....the speed of light may be firm....
if you are that beam of light

but another beam of light with head on collision pending
would double that velocity at impact

all motion is relative

All motion is relative because zero points reset for each frame. See above post.

 

[Thief]

All motion is relative because zero points reset for each frame. See above post.

but I'm not buying that

mind experiment?

try this......
picture yourself sitting on a 6foot diameter ball.....in a complete void

Are you moving?